Chemistry explosions are all bang and no buck

I am a chemist and I am heavily involved in science outreach especially in chemistry. I have built a library of demonstrations that I can pull out to demonstrate scientific principles. I also have an array of demonstrations that result in an explosion, not something to brag about when needing to board a flight. The explosions and flames are my least called upon demonstrations. I loathe these demonstrations and use them sparingly. Chemistry is so much more than pyrotechnics and it is an incredible tragedy that this is what it has become to not just people outside of science but also within science. As a chemist of 10 years, I have not once used an explosion in any of my work.

Well meaning science communicators and chemists have used them to grab the attention and awe from audiences in chemistry talks and demonstrations for who knows how long. I have seen too many to count in many guises and for a range of audiences, and all with the intention of telling people about the chemistry of matter. The bits that make up stuff around us and the chemical  reactions of the bits. This mode of chemistry outreach is a dismal failure at representing chemistry and inspiring future scientists. I say this because the vast majority of people whose only exposure to chemistry is demonstrations sum up chemistry with one word, “explosions”. Even students who have yet to step into a chemistry class will say this and then lament about the lack of explosions.

Chemistry isn’t a study of pyrotechnics. I may know the chemical components of what is needed in a firework and the chemical compounds in a number of explosives but I don’t know the first thing about firing them safely. I’m not a pyrotechnician. There needs to be an overhaul of chemistry demonstrations that are trotted out on stage before a switched on public. Let’s face it, people who turn up at these are already interested so they’re not a hostile audience. It’s time they got more than a scaled down fireworks display.

Instead of trying to design a show that encompasses the whole of chemistry, I think shows should focus on aspects of chemistry. This would mean a greater variety of demonstrations, (we’ve got the equipment so let’s flaunt it), and a better representation of what chemistry is and more importantly how pervasive it is throughout science and everyday life. Let’s see more chemistry shows with themes and targeted messages beyond, “Chemistry is awesome and exciting!”.

There are demonstrations involving dry ice beyond placing it in a bottle or an old 35mm film cannister and waiting for a big bang. Yes gases expand and this is an excellent demonstration but given that CO₂ is now a much talked about gas, there is opportunity to show people some of its other properties. You could collect CO₂ and pour it over a flame to demonstrate the fluidity of gases. It also shows that it doesn’t support combustion and the principle behind CO₂ fire extinguishers. Get an empty aquarium, throw in pellets of CO₂ and blow bubbles into it and voila, floating bubbles.

Then of course there is the visual demonstration of bubbling CO₂ through a solution to change the pH of a solution. The acidification of oceans has entered mainstream media reporting so why not get a sample of ocean water and experiment before a live audience? And with the advent of cheap webcams and livestreaming, leave a shell in acidified ocean water for the audience to monitor over time after the show to see what happens. Chemistry isn’t confined to laboratories and shows so why not encourage ongoing discussion?

Why not bring in some analytical instruments to analyse samples? There are so many handheld devices now and if you have access to them, show them off in action. I attended an open day at a chemical analytical lab and the most popular and busy stalls had working handheld devices. Bring it in and analyse something live in front of an audience in a themed show. Ask the audience for an everyday object they have on them and tie it into the show.

One of the most awe inspiring demonstrations I have seen did not have one explosion. It was a colour show showing off chemiluminescence accompanied with an informative talk. You know that CSI trick where they spray a bottle in a crime scene and then shine a UV light and suddenly the blood splatter can be seen? The chemists behind this talk took that right out of CSI, put it in front of the audience, and showed just how bright luminol can get and with more colour. It no longer remained in the domain of television magic. The speakers did finish off with an explosion but what everyone was talking about after was the much more complicated chemical reactions behind chemiluminescence.

This kind of discussion only comes if the chemistry has content beyond the flashes of light and colour. Content is king. Chemists are not magicians or performers in white lab coats. Every chemist I talk to has a story of intrigue and mystery about their work, and not just the forensic chemists. Each one of us has a mystery to solve and who doesn’t love a good detective story? Why don’t these stories get shared and in doing so shed the snap, crackle and pop impression of chemistry? After all, it’s not the study of a breakfast cereal.

I am not saying do away with explosions entirely but if it means that the rest of the chemistry show talk can’t stand alone without them, then what is the point? Demonstrations should highlight the content and show off the chemistry. No smoke, no mirrors, just the revealing of chemistry in everyday life which in itself is magical. Give people something to walk away with a real story of chemistry instead of memories of a big bang and no buck.

Related articles

• Demonstrating the bigger picture (rsc.org)
• On Ilkley Moor bar TNT (rsc.org)

Chemistry Based Practical Jokes

Before I start this ranty post, I want to state up front that I make a habit of making chemistry fun. I’ve let off controlled explosions in demonstrations, used naked flames in demonstrations and have sent rockets so high in the sky, air clearance was obtained. I love doing this. It’s fun and demonstrates a lot of abstract ideas beautifully.

I also love it when chemistry gets a mention in mainstream media. No wait, I mostly like it when mainstream media covers chemistry. There are times when all I can do is yell obscenities at my computer monitor when I see articles titled, “How to Use Basic Chemistry to Scare the Hell Out of Your Neighbour” like I did over at Gizmodo. The only reason why I’m linking to it even though it irks me to do so is because it has high visibility and you have probably read it anyway. It is also what I’m about to rip into.

Halloween is around the corner. I live in Australia and in my neighbourhood with the absence of American expats, it’s mostly a non-event. However this doesn’t preclude me from filling with rage as I read some of the Halloween pranks that Eric Limer has suggested to Gizmodo readers. Rage because it’s ridiculously stupid purposefully harmful moronic pranks that make it that much more difficult to conduct a fun chemistry demonstration in schools in the name of education.

Let’s start with the suggestion of a sprayable stink bomb. A mixture of match heads soaked in household ammonia. Limer admits that ammonia is potent all by itself. No kidding. It’s so potent that I use gloves in a well ventilated space when using it around the home. I’m not even in a lab with extraction hood going when I take those precautions. Quite frankly, I don’t want to have red and runny eyes while wishing for clear air to breathe. It is absolutely nasty stuff and not something you want to get anywhere near your eyes.

There’s no logical explanation why anyone with any sense of responsibility would suggest soaking match heads in ammonia to create a smelly solution to load into a water gun to spray on other people. Every single time I have been involved in a water gun fight, water has gotten in my eyes and all over me. Think of all the areas with sensitive skin, eyes, nasal passages, ears, mouth. Awful huh? Now extend that to the nether regions. Yeah. I had to go there.

Try explaining those chemical burns in the emergency department to the attending doctors and nurses repeatedly because everyone will ask why you’re there. Maybe even one day, your story will become one of those emergency department stories told as a moral teaching to stave off acts of stupidity.

The prank that had me checking that I hadn’t slipped into an alternate reality accidentally where dangerous pranks are acceptable was Limer’s suggestion was to use methylene blue to change the colour of other people’s urine to blue. Just slip a tablespoon of the stuff into a 2L bottle of cola drink. I don’t even use a tablespoon of the stuff in titrations. I have only ever used drops.

Methylene blue has a wide range of applications. It’s an excellent fungicide in aquariums as well as treating fish infected with ich. It also has a wide range of medical uses and because of this, methylene blue has a list of medications that should not be used in conjunction with. Limer does point out,

“For the vast majority of people a tiny dose of methylene blue is harmless”.

True but how are you going to know whether someone else is on any of these medications:

• meperidine (Demerol);
• diet pills, stimulants, cold or allergy medicines, ADHD medication;
• migraine or cluster headache medication such as almotriptan (Axert), frovatriptan (Frova), naratriptan (Amerge), rizatriptan (Maxalt), sumatriptan (Imitrex, Treximet), or zolmitriptan (Zomig);
• medication to treat Parkinson’s disease or restless leg syndrome, such as carbidopa or levodopa (Lodosyn, Parcopa, Sinemet), pramipexole (Mirapex), or ropinirole (Requip);
• an “SSRI” antidepressant such as citalopram (Celexa), escitalopram (Lexapro), fluoxetine (Prozac, Sarafem, Symbyax), fluvoxamine (Luvox), paroxetine (Paxil), or sertraline (Zoloft);
• an “SNRI” antidepressant such as venlafaxine (Effexor), desvenlafaxine (Pristiq), or duloxetine (Cymbalta);
• a “tricyclic” antidepressant such as amitriptyline (Elavil, Vanatrip, Limbitrol), clomipramine (Anafranil), desipramine (Norpramin), doxepin (Sinequan), imipramine (Janimine, Tofranil), nortriptyline (Pamelor), protriptyline (Vivactil), or trimipramine (Surmontil); or
• other medications used to treat depression, anxiety, and other psychiatric conditions, such as bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban, Aplenzin), buspirone (BuSpar), maprotiline (Ludiomil), mirtazapine (Remeron), nefazodone, trazodone (Desyrel, Oleptro), or vilazodone (Viibryd).

or have either of these conditions:

• kidney disease; or
• glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency.

Also, pregnant women should also avoid drinking methylene blue. It isn’t known whether methylene blue will harm an unborn baby. And nor is it known whether methylene blue passes through into breast milk.

Do you ask? (I would part with money to watch you ask all of the women of reproductive age whether they are pregnant.) Do you label your methylene blue laced 2L cola appropriately during the party? If there is alcohol at the party, how do you ensure guests or even yourself don’t mix up the bottle with innocent bottles? All these questions for one prank because if you don’t ask, you could well end up with a guest needing a hospital stay.

Then there is the suggestion to make a homemade dry ice powered PVC cannon. Do I need to point out that law enforcement agencies do not take kindly to homemade cannons? And even with the suggestion to aim skyward for safety, just how many people will keep to that operating advice?

If that’s not enough, you can finish the night with a bang by lighting a balloon filled with hydrogen gas for any remaining guests and neighbours to marvel at. Lighting up a hydrogen gas filled balloon is fun. I have done it but then I wasn’t on a mission to annoy everyone in my neighbourhood thinking no one would think to call the police over a loud bang and ensuing ball of fire.

Limer walks through how to make and collect hydrogen gas. No big deal but when you have to write,

“If you don’t know what hydrochloric acid is, or where to get it, then don’t try this in the first place.”

perhaps you shouldn’t write about this stuff in the first place. Regardless whether people know about it or not, they will now in all likelihood seek it out and probably not bother to read the MSDS before using it. I am even less thrilled with the suggestion of how to light a hydrogen filled balloon.

“Using a long fireplace match (and still wearing your gloves and glasses), ignite the balloon by poking it. You should experience a surprisingly brisant and startling explosion.”

Umm….no. Just no. A long fireplace match is NOT something I would use to light up a hydrogen filled balloon. What I’ve used in the past is a long pole where a match is attached to the end to light the balloon. That startling explosion Limer mentions is not one you want to be within arm’s length of.

And finally, how does one dispose of the acid?

“To dispose of the acid, keep your rubber gloves on, and pour the contents of the bottle into a toilet bowl or sink. Flush everything down the drain with water.”

Down the toilet? Really? No. A world of no. When handling acid, you want to know exactly where that acid is at all times to prevent injuries, namely burns. I mentioned sensitive areas earlier and it’s the same situation here. Your sensitive groin area is very much exposed on a toilet seat. Thanks to Murphy’s Law, any remnant of acid on the seat will be found most painfully.

It would be best to neutralise the acid first before disposal but if you don’t know how to do this, you really shouldn’t be handling acid in the first place.

And after all that, the only suggestion that Limer made that I don’t have a problem with is adding baking soda to a nearly empty bottle of ketchup sauce resulting in a spray of ketchup everywhere. It is rather lame. Then again, pranks are lame.

Would it not be better to use basic chemistry to spice up Halloween where no one was at risk of getting hurt or is that not the in thing these days?

If you do want to do chemistry at home without ending up in an emergency department or having the local law enforcement visit, it is possible. Check out Try This at Home.

[UPDATE]: Royal Society of Chemistry has just issued a press release condemning the methylene blue prank.

Related articles

• Making People Hate Chemistry on Halloween (cenblog.org)
• These Halloween pranks from Gizmodo could seriously damage your health | Dr Mark Lorch (guardian.co.uk)
• When practical jokes and chemistry don’t mix (chemistry-blog.com)

What Do I Do All Day?

It’s National Chemistry Week in the USA this week and a blog project titled Chem Coach has been started up by See Arr Oh. It calls for chemists of all kinds to come forth and talk about their day jobs and how they got to where they are. It also coincides with an invitation to a primary school to talk about My Scientific Life to a group of academically gifted students.

I am a chemist and a metallurgist. I have never had a standard work day because I have usually worked on temperamental short term research projects. The variation has been fantastic at keeping the brain cells alive with many cranial stretches but I have to admit that when it comes to job security, it is woeful. I have learned to keep a budget and save for the rainy days that do come. I suppose I should have settled down with one project area or settled in a laboratory but I have not found that one project or laboratory to do that. They have all inevitably run out of funding.

For the moment, my standard days are filled with volunteering in science outreach and researching for science news articles I need to write. You see, I recently resigned from a role as a chemist as the project I was working on came to an end and there was no word of any further projects. I am no good at twiddling my thumbs and thought it was best to move on than work in uncertainty.

Since receiving my Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from Murdoch University, I have worked as a chemist, ICP chemist, university tutor and lab demonstrator, research assistant, freelance photographer and writer, metallurgist, and lab manager. I don’t fit the standard model, school → university → career for life which has led to concerned parents and a life for friends to follow vicariously as they await the next unfolding chapter to be splashed across social media.

The thing that has been the most valuable in my patchwork quilt science career is passion. Sorry kids, if you were expecting advice on what you should focus on in your academic and career choices, I don’t give those out. I don’t want to ever tell someone what they should do for the rest of their lives. Chemistry is something that I love and stepping into laboratories for me is like a fashionista being given an all access pass to Paris Fashion Week. Like fashion, chemistry is part of everything in our lives and you either love it or live with it. If you haven’t realised, I love chemistry.

I am where I am because I chose to work in an area that I love and enjoy. I don’t expect anyone else to understand my love for chemistry but the enjoyment gained from doing something fun, no matter what is universal.

Related articles

• Chem Coach Carnival – Science Writing (cenblog.org)
• Chem Coach Carnival: A Few Questions (pipeline.corante.com)
• Pushing electrons over to the #ChemCoach Carnival (cenblog.org)
• It’s National Chemistry Week: 2012 Theme is Nanotechnology (blogs.scientificamerican.com)
• Chem Coach Carnival: Me (stevebetz.wordpress.com)

A Toast to Chemistry

Image via Wikipedia

It’s the end of the year. It’s a time to reflect and celebrate and it’s also a time for Champagne. More Champagne corks are popped during the festive season than at any other time of the year.

Champagne isn’t all about the bubbles. It is a type of sparkling wine but only sparkling wine made from the grapes from the region of Champagne in France can be called Champagne. Everyone else has to call it something else.

The bubbles in Champagne and their equivalents are bubbles of carbon dioxide being released. In each glass of Champagned consumed there are over 600 chemical compounds that join with the carbon dioxide creating the aroma and flavour of the drink.

Legend has it that French Benedictine monk Dom Pierre Pérignon invented sparkling wine in the cellars of Abbey of Hautvillers. He didn’t. He did advance the development of the production of Champagne such as the muselet, you know the bit of wire over the cork to hold it in place to prevent the fermentation pressure from pushing the cork out. The explosive quality of Champagne resulted in the wine to be called le vin du diable, (the Devil’s wine). Bottles would explode causing bottles around them to explode, an event that does not lend itself to making a profit. Dom Pérignon was originally given the responsibility of removing the bubbles because of the number of bottles bursting in the cellar.

So who invented sparkling wine? It wasn’t just one person and it was a series of developments from different people, (including Dom Pérignon),  that led to Champagne. The oldest recorded sparkling wine is Blanquette de Limoux that was created by Benedictine monks at the Abbey of Saint Hilaire near Carcossone in 1531. Then in 1662, six years before Dom Pérignon entered the Abbey of Hautvillers’ cellar, an English scientist and physician, Christopher Merret presented a paper titled, Some Observations Concerning the Ordering of Wines to The Royal Society. He detailed the addition of sugar and molasses to wine to make it sparkling. This method in modern times is called the Methode Champenoise, a method to induce the second fermentation in wines without worrying about bottles exploding.

Here’s video from the American Chemical Society on Champagne including advice on how to pour the beverage to maximise the amount of bubbles in your glass.

Happy New Year!

Related articles

• Toasting the chemistry of champagne: New Year’s Eve video from the American Chemical Society (eurekalert.org)

Another Reason to Wear Safety Glasses

Safety Glasses, Source: Wikipedia

Something that is overlooked in the importance of wearing safety glasses in lab is that they provide UV protection to the eyes. A report in Harvard Crimson from two weeks ago is a timely reminder:

“On Tuesday afternoon, Adeyemi, [a student] whose eyesight has now recovered fully, had walked into Science Center 117 for her last three-hour LPSA lab of the semester.

The roughly 60 students in the lab would be completing the second half of a two-week lab that used polymerase chain reaction analysis to identify genetically modified foods.

Among their tasks for the day would be an electrophoresis procedure in which they would inject a sample of DNA into gel and then run an electric current across the gel. That process would separate DNA strands of different length. And when viewed under a blue light transilluminator, the strands’ differing lengths would become apparent.”

Some of the students didn’t wear safety glasses resulting in irritations to their eyes and blurry vision.  Several students were sent to the hospital and luckily no one is expected to suffer permanent damage. Just because there might not be a beaker of chemicals on the bench, it doesn’t mean that you can be complacent about PPE. It is also why lab safety inductions/manuals/regulations always stress that safety glasses need to be worn. Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean that it won’t hurt you.

Accidental UV exposure isn’t limited to the lab. Last night it was reported in the news that a broken floodlight cover exposed people at a basketball game in Katanning to UV light. People started presenting themselves to the town’s hospital from 8:30AM with stinging eyes, ulcerations to the eyes and even skin burn. At one stage the finger was pointed at a possible chemical or gas leak but has since been ruled out.